RSS Feed MenuApparently, a growing number of conservatives have discovered they’re “at war.” This war is not taking place overseas and the enemy is not, say, Al Qaeda or the Taliban. The war in question is against fellow Americans, particularly those of a leftist persuasion. Consider these recent declarations:
“The Activist Left hates us. They will continue to hate us until we break and lick their boots. It’s their freaking victory condition. We’re in a war to the knife, made all the more psychologically vicious because there’s no physical violence involved.”
Emphases in the original. Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds cited this passage approvingly.
Marc Rotterman of the John Locke Foundation:
“…we have an obligation in our messaging and advertising to illustrate in stark terms what ‘Obama’s transformation’ means to America, its families, traditions, and culture. In short, we must campaign against the left as if we are at war.”
Red State blogger Hogan, defending radio host Mark Levin against charges of inaccuracy:
“Mark recognizes that when you are at war, while it is important to get facts right (and I think Mark did a darned fine job sourcing his book, giving you the chance to criticize it), it is also important to inspire the troops and to do so by distilling the realities of the fight into useful information.”
David Horowitz, in a FrontPageMag.com piece titled “Obamacare Bill: A Declaration of War”:
“[The Democratic Party’s] brazen contempt for the compact that holds the diverse factions of this country together has initiated a political war at home that will extend not only into the next elections but into the next generations that will be encumbered with the trillions in debt and oppressive government controls that the socialist majority in Congress has demonstrated that it is intent on inflicting on this country.”
(Also at FrontPageMag: “The Left’s War on Tea Partiers,” by Dennis Prager.)
Newt Gingrich, in an interview with OneNewsNow, describing Obama’s plan to reduce the charitable tax deduction for top earners: “a war against churches and charities.”
Ann Kane, at The American Thinker, in a piece titled “The Left’s War on America”:
“The leftist progressives continue to plot their strategies in a perpetual war of their own making. They are on stage mocking America because of the health care takeover, while they have financial institution reform and amnesty for illegal aliens waiting in the wings…. They have declared war on the American people. How will we respond?”
Minnesota State Rep. Dan Severson, campaigning to be Minnesota Secretary of State, April 28, 2010:
“If there’s any question here, we are at war. We aren’t just at war on the terror front. We’re at war for democracy, for a republic in the United States of America. We are at war for values. Our opponents’ values are a lot different than the values we hold dear in this Republican Party: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The liberties that we fight for in the military are the same liberties we are fighting for today in our legislative bodies. And today that fight has come home to Minnesota.”
Austin Hill, Town Hall columnist, in a piece titled “Is President Obama At War With America?”:
“If a frontal assault on the foundational principals [sic] and values of American life can qualify as being “at war” — then yes, Barack Obama is in combat with our country.”
Such martial rhetoric is not entirely new – recall Pat Buchanan’s “religious war” call of 1992 – but it now seems to be emerging as a staple of conservative rhetoric rather than an oddity. There are some big problems with this “we’re at war” style of rhetoric, though. One, it’s overblown. Two, it’s inflammatory. Three, it’s self-defeating. Let’s take these in turn:
It’s overblown. War is war. It involves arms and legs being sheared off, eyes being gouged out, faces being melted and heads being blown off. Nonviolent politics, even when “psychologically vicious,” is not comparable. If the debate over ObamaCare was war, what do we call what happened in Fallujah or Iwo Jima?
Politicians have long been declaring some or another effort to be a “war,” as in War on Hunger, War on Poverty, War on Drugs and, in the case of Jimmy Carter’s energy policy, the Moral Equivalent of War. There was a time when conservatives tended to make fun of such rhetoric. William Safire gave Carter’s policy the acronym MEOW and Ronald Reagan said “We fought a war on poverty and poverty won.”
But while declaring some programmatic initiative to be war may be silly, at least the declared enemy is an abstract problem. That’s not as bad as declaring flesh-and-blood political opponents the equivalent of wartime enemies. This brings me to my second objection to the “we’re at war” rhetoric.
It’s inflammatory. If you’re at war, the way to win is by killing the enemy. If you’re in a nonviolent political contest or conflict, the way to win is by out-debating, out-voting, out-organizing and outsmarting your opponent. It’s always possible some nut will take the “we’re at war” business too seriously and then the purveyors of that rhetoric will disavow that they had anything violent in mind. But it’s better not to blur the distinction in the first place.
It’s more morally sound to use political rhetoric that’s not overblown or inflammatory. It’s also better strategy, which brings me to my final objection to the “we’re at war” style:
It’s self-defeating. Even in the absence of some nutcase violence that might be blamed on “war” talk, such rhetoric is off-putting to people who are not already fervent members of the conservative base. Surely, there are many people who are amenable to conservative arguments but averse to the overheated style in which these are often presented. Moreover, the “we’re at war” talk is a gift to the left, as it provides handy citations for convincing the center that the right is crazy and irresponsible.
Better to win calmly than to lose hysterically.
franco 2 // May 10, 2010 at 9:23 am
franco — we did not leave iraq pronto because we have to clean up the mess we made. we simply can’t invade other countries on whim, topple the government, and then withdraw leaving a destabilized country. the original justification was certainly WMDs, and the only thing more ‘complicated’ than that is our duty to clean up our own messes, and the strategic sense that a destabilized iraq is very dangerous for the middle east.
Lots of people want us to just leave. Obama didn’t make this “stability” argument while campaigning – he wanted us out, and he led the anti-Iraq war folks to believe he’s do it pronto. McCain and Republicans were making the stability argument.
However, I think you rewrite history when you pretend that Iraq was “stable” before we invaded.
First, we really don’t know what the world would be like today had we not invaded Iraq. Sadaam would still be in power, probably, or maybe one of his crazy sons. What would he be doing by now? Would our troops still be in Saudi Arabia? He was well on his way toward getting sanctions lifted and regardless of whether he had WMD then would he have them by now? Very well could be. Could he have in one attack annihilated all our troops in Saudi Arabia by now, killing more Americans in one attack than we lost throughout the war? Who knows?
Iraq is in much better shape than when Sadaam controlled it, and Iraq was already very dangerous under his rule, and it can’t get much worse than it was pre 2002 if we just leave, so I really don’t see why you guys are making this argument now. Obama didn’t make it before. Did he change his mind or was he just using the anti-war folks?
sinz54 // May 10, 2010 at 9:25 am
quanta & franco 2:
Neither WMD nor implanting democracy were the real reasons offered by neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz and Perle and Cheney for advocating the toppling of Saddam. Back during the Clinton Administration, long before 9-11, when these men were out of power, they wrote extensively on their views and made the talk-show circuit to sell their ideas to Americans. And what they said back then was different than the cover stories like WMD they used to sell the wars after 9-11.
First, the neo-conservatives had a theory that all Islamist terrorism was state-sponsored. They scorned so-called “non-state actors” like al-Qaeda as relatively unimportant players. They believed that the first WTC bombing in 1993 and the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 were the work of Saddam in revenge for the Gulf War. So that when 9-11 happened, they assumed that Saddam must have had a hand in that attack too–and kept looking for evidence that Saddam was behind it.
Second, they believed that the U.S. was being humiliated by Saddam, who had survived the Gulf War and who was constantly challenging the no-fly zones in Iraq and fomenting all this terrorism against us. They believed that the U.S. was losing its “hayba”–awesomeness–which it had demonstrated by winning the Cold War. And so, by making an example out of the Saddam regime, the U.S. could once again demonstrate to the entire world that we were “indomitable.” Bceause it’s “hayba” that the Muslim world respects.
These men then went to work for the Bush Administration, and their ideas became Bush foreign policy, especially after 9-11.
Now, with the passage of time, we can evaluate their theories.
Their first theory was flat wrong. al-Qaeda has done well on Osama bin Laden’s personal fortune and the willingness of radical Muslims around the world to support it. Further, we now know that none of these major terrorist acts against us was the work of Saddam. The closest thing to state-sponsored Islamist terrorism against America emanates from Pakistan, not Iraq.
And as for America regaining its “hayba”–it’s pretty clear that after 8 years of war, the U.S. has lost even more “hayba.” We are weaker, unable to defeat the enemy that killed 3,000 Americans. Ask any college grad in China, and he’ll tell you that America peaked in 2000 and has been going downhill ever since.
franco 2 // May 10, 2010 at 10:10 am
Sinz,
I don’t really think they thought Sadaam was behind 9/11. He certainly sympathized with our enemies and celebrated it. Osama’s personal fortune is minuscule compared to the money that gets contributed by other actors.
As much trouble as Iraq has been in the aftermath of the war, it’s slowly becoming a stable viable and peaceful country in the Middle East. Long term that is a remarkable achievement. And since we’re talking about WWII. Do people know that there were nazi insurgents in Germany making life miserable of USA for several years? It just wasn’t big news back then.
Also as much trouble as we’ve had – much of it generated by the anti-war media in our own country, I think we come out of this having shown that we are willing to actually depose and hang dictators. Not acting at some point with Sadaam would have lost us even more “hayba” than our difficulties have cost us. Ultimately it will be the USA who went in, summarily kicked butt, experienced monumental difficulties but still overcame them, did what we said we would do and left. In the long run that’s worth a helluva lot. The USA acted, and at some point you do have to act and show you are willing to fight. No one talks about this, but we learned a great deal from this experience and if we ever have to do anything like this again we’ll be in much better shape to do it – or not do it as the case may be.
In prison, you have to fight. Even if you lose, you have to make it known to the bullies there is a price they have to pay for picking on you or challenging you to a fight. Even if you have a broken arm and the other guy only has a black eye, it was worth fighting because he too paid a price and maybe next time he’ll get his arm broken by you.
The world isn’t much different than a prison full of criminals. Dictators know that sometimes anyway, the US will fight to the finish and they PERSONALLY will lose. They have a lot of power and wealth why should a Sadaam risk his wonderful life, where he can roam the streets of Baghdad in his limo and pick out a pretty girl to take home and rape under his golden overhead mirror?
I say we certainly won that part, considering the Iraqis hung the bastard.
ottovbvs // May 10, 2010 at 10:20 am
franco 2 // May 10, 2010 at 9:05 am
“I was playing the devil’s advocate when questioning our participation in WWII merely trying to point out that there were dissenters and that good arguments could be made in staying out of the war.
Hitler’s Germany was terrible but so was Stalin’s Soviet Union. Stalin killed more of his own than Hitler, and almost as systematically. But the world was no more dangerous then as it is now. Fascism of the Nazi variety was defeated at an enourmos expense exponentially more than the defeat of the Ba’athist variety of fascism. But the Soviets enslaved half of Europe and cost the US Treasury dearly in having to fight the cold war.”
…..Er……..Franco…..1).we didn’t have the option of staying out of the war……Japan attacked us on December 7th, 1941, and Germany declared war on us four days later…..2)Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union not us, we just rendered assistance, important assistance but assistance just the same….3)Russia and Britain would almost certainly have been able to defeat Germany without American participation but the conseqence would have been Russian dominance of the entire European land mass including Britain instead of it’s eastern quarter which would have been a geo strategic calamity for the US.
ottovbvs // May 10, 2010 at 10:27 am
franco 2 // May 10, 2010 at 10:10 am
“And since we’re talking about WWII. Do people know that there were nazi insurgents in Germany making life miserable of USA for several years? It just wasn’t big news back then……Also as much trouble as we’ve had – much of it generated by the anti-war media in our own country, ”
……It wasn’t big news “back then” because it never happened……. there were NO nazis insurgents in Germany after the surrender……..and good luck Franco with that other piece of fiction that the Iraq war has been a huge success instead of one of the greatest and most costly foreign policy debacles since our defeat in Vietnam
easton // May 10, 2010 at 10:30 am
“Purists insist that both parents must be U.S. citizens and you must be born on U.S. soil. This narrow interpretation would mean that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States.” So McCain also would have been ineligible, as would none of our first Presidents, being that they were born as British subjects. Who knew George Washington was illegitimate?
“I was taught in 4th grade that if a person that was eligible for a US military draft and could claim a non-US citizenship to prevent such draft, that person would not qualify for president of the US.” Well, there you go, that is pretty definitive, if your 4th grade teacher tells you so, it must be true. As a grandson of one immigrant from Germany I could have chosen German citizenship up to some point, even though both of my parents were born in the US, so I guess I am not qualified either, nor for that matter is every Jewish person in America, who can claim Israeli citizenship.
nhthinker is just too funny, that is like a parody.
Slide // May 9, 2010 at 10:18 pm great posting, I am in complete agreement. That is quite a rouges gallery of idiocy you put up there, all vile and greedy people. (and yes, there are people on the left as bad, but they have nowhere the visibility outside of idiot Moore) Anyway, mainstream Democrats laugh at the moonbats, the wingnuts have become the soul of the Republican party. Far, far scarier situation.
easton // May 10, 2010 at 10:48 am
otto, I disagree that Russia and Britain would have been able to defeat Germany without the US, we kept them alive via the transiberian railroad, without it they would have certainly been beaten, and if Japan had attacked Russia as part of its war in 1941, that would have broken the back of the Russians, the Axis had no co-ordination.
Anyway, counter-factual history might be fun but is just speculation. I certainly agree that Bush messed up Iraq horrendously for 3 plus years, Donald Rumsfeld was by far the most disgraceful Sec. Def. in American history. And I supported the war in Iraq, I thought Hussein was a cancer in the middle east, a man who started war after war and was bound and determined to turn his country over to his psychopathic children. But knowing what i know now, how badly Bush would screw it up, I wouldn’t have supported it, certainly not until Afghanistan was stabilized (and Rumsfeld allowing Bin Laden to escape because he was so determined to prove his newfangled war theory was borderline traitorous)
“it’s slowly becoming a stable viable and peaceful country in the Middle East.” No, it isn’t. I wish it were but it isn’t. They had an election and still haven’t resolved it, and if not for our soldiers there they must likely would have resolved it with guns. We are stuck there for God knows how much longer. While ultimately I think it is worth it for the Iraqis, I don’t think it will have been so for us.
anniemargret // May 10, 2010 at 12:09 pm
otto: regarding the Iraq war – “..one of the greatest and most costly foreign policy debacles since our defeat in Vietnam.”
Absolutely. And precisely why I, among millions of other Americans and Europeans, never saw the clear-case for the invasion of Iraq in the run-up in ‘03. No question Saddam was a monster, but their ‘causus belli’ from Bush and Cheney were almost entirely devoted to trying to dovetail the events of 9/11 with Iraq and WMD. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Contrary to many conservatives views that liberals are ‘anti-military’ – I can only answer for myself as a moderately liberal Dem. I come from a military family, and it is exactly because I was old enough to see the monstrosity that Vietnam came, and because my boyfriend died there in ‘68, that I realized that going to war was the single greatest and most solemn decision a President could make.
I felt that they were trying to put one over on us. Not because I didn’t think Saddam had WMD and had prior used them on his own people, but because there wasn’t a clear enough case for war . That administration used the fear, absolute gut-wrenching fear and anger from 9/11, and tried to conflate the two because their agenda for invasion fell more into their Pax Americana ideas than not.
I am still angry about that. When one looks at the horrible stats from the Iraq war, I cannot understand how we can go forward as a nation, and not, never again, go to war too easily or without total justification for it. Saying we ‘think he had WMDs, or he ‘might’ have them, is not enough.
Hitler had already started his fascism campaign on Europe and there was no question our involvement was going to happen sooner or later.
Big difference.
And while I would prefer we get out sooner rather than later, I totally understand the implications of a too-soon withdrawal. The mess was created, and getting out of that mess is not an easy undertaking, for Obama, or for any other Republican if he/she had been elected.
And for God’s sake…I wish OBL was still not on the lam.
Slide // May 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm
nhthinker // May 9, 2010 at 10:21 am “Even Newsweek is calling the Iraq war as now won, on final glide path to accomplishing all the key missions set forth by the Bush Administration.”
Well if Newsweek said it, it must be true right?
Now for a reality check:
Dozens killed in Iraq bombings and shootings
Monday, May 10, 2010
Iraqi insurgents kill up to 55 people in co-ordinated series of 20 attacks on civilians and police in Baghdad, Falluja and Mosul.
An Iraqi man walks through rubble at the site of a bombing that targeted police in Falluja, Iraq. Bombings and shootings by Iraqi insurgents killed up to 55 people today in a co-ordinated series of 20 attacks on civilians, police and security forces in Baghdad and beyond.
Armed men used silenced and automatic weapons, roadside bombs and cars packed with explosives to hit six checkpoints manned by local and federal police and the Iraqi national army in the capital.
The worst single incident was a car bombing outside a textiles factory in the central city of Hilla, 60 miles south of Baghdad, which left 20 dead. A double bomb attack near a mosque in Suwayra, south-east of the capital, killed 11 people and wounded 70. Attacks were also reported from Falluja and Mosul.
No immediate claims of responsibility were made, but violence has been on the rise in recent months, especially in the capital, after attacks dropped significantly since 2006 and 2007 when the post-invasion sectarian conflict was at its height.
The latest attacks were seen as a show of force from weakened Sunni insurgents after Iraqi government forces, backed by US troops, dealt a series of blows to al-Qaida’s Iraqi network in recent weeks.
The bloodshed was seen as underlining the danger of a power vacuum after parliamentary elections on 7 March left no clear winner, with wrangling by rival political blocs to form a coalition leaving an atmosphere of uncertainty. Analysts warn of the dangers of a backlash by Shia militia which have so far resisted counter-attacks.
Iraqiyya, the cross-sectarian alliance led by the former prime minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shia, benefited from strong support from Sunnis to take a two-seat lead in the vote. But the main Shia-led coalitions, supported by Iran, have agreed to form an alliance that could block Allawi’s hopes of forming the next government, alarming Sunnis who have felt disenfranchised since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The election was seen as a potential turning point for Iraq as it seeks to attract urgently needed foreign investment and develop its vast oilfields while US forces prepare to withdraw.
Today’s incidents come after the number of Iraqis killed in April fell slightly month-on-month but was almost unchanged from a year ago. Figures compiled by the health, interior and defence ministries showed that 328 people – 274 civilians, 39 police and 15 soldiers – died as a result of attacks in April, only slightly fewer than the 355 killed 12 months ago. April’s death toll, however, was down slightly on March, when 367 people were killed in unrest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/10/iraq-bombings-shootings
anniemargret // May 10, 2010 at 12:19 pm
franco: “I am very suspicious of privileged people who want to “help” poor and downtrodden people. Usually they just want to assuage their guilt feelings, and they want to do it with other people’s money. But if they want to give their own money away, or volunteer their time and start a charity or a foundation and beg and coerce their rich friends to contribute, I’m all for it. I might even donate myself. But when they impose a government solution which is tantamount to taking, by force, money and redistributing it, I have a real problem with that.”
You’re a true libertarian. I do agree with some libertarian ideology but this is not one of them. Yes, I’m sure there are rich people who give to charities or individuals out of guilt, or perhaps simply because they are generous, good-hearted people. But I, as a person who believes in social justice and our purpose to not only help ourselves and our families, but also to give back to the community, and especially to those more unfortunate, I have no problem whatsoever that some of my taxes go for that.
Because I understand that to ignore the plight of the unfortunate, and assume that wealthy will take care of them through charities, etc…is to assume too much. And because I was brought up as a Christian, it is simply part of my worldview.
These two different ideologies will never meet.
CentristNYer // May 10, 2010 at 2:31 pm
franco 2 // May 9, 2010 at 10:08 pm
“You may not be aware, but CNN is seen by most Fox viewers as being shills for Democrats.”
This is not only objectively false but a very funny assertion coming from people who watch a channel totally dominated by Hannity, O’Reilly, Palin, North, Huckabee, Beck and Rove.
franco 2 // May 10, 2010 at 3:56 pm
annie,
“But I, as a person who believes in social justice and our purpose to not only help ourselves and our families, but also to give back to the community, and especially to those more unfortunate, I have no problem whatsoever that some of my taxes go for that. ”
The problem is that you want my taxes to go for that too not just yours. And a problem persists and gets worse. The welfare programs put in place by Lyndon Johnson had the effect of ruining the black family, because many black men were unemployed and women could only get aid if they were unmarried and they got more aid for each child. As I said, I’m a believer in incentives and this put forward a perverse incentive for poor people, many at that time were disproportionately black and living in inner cities. It discouraged marriage which is a stabilizing force in society (my conservatism is showing here) it also replaced the male role of provider and made him superfluous. Young boys and men grew up without fathers and they turned to crime without direction further destabilizing the communities and discouraging businesses to open in such neighborhoods.
So while it seems like a good idea at first, if you really take the whole picture and include all the other consequences it was and is a very bad idea if you really wish to help people and communities.
And just wondering, at what point will you draw the line with your tax dollars? At which percentage of your income do you tell the government to stop spending your money. How much of a right do you grant the government with your time and investments? How much do they really need?
franco 2 // May 10, 2010 at 4:06 pm
CentristNYer
CNN isn’t biased? Hahahahaha
Of course Fox has a lot of right wing opinion, as MSNBC has a lot of left-wing opinion. Both have news shows where they are supposed to report news unbiased, and Fox does a better job with that than either CNN or MSNBC.
CNN has a more comprehensive news division, but it’s run by lefty producers writers and anchors. Ever heard Ted Turner interviewed? He owned and founded CNN before it was sold to TimeWarner which is a total leftwing organization and has been for ears.
The one CNN anchor who was somewhat libertarian, Lou Dobbs just got fired. At least Fox still has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldo Rivera (for what he’s worth) and Shepard Smith and a few more
CentristNYer // May 10, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Wow, franco — you’re even more brainwashed than we suspected.
Even assuming that they’re “liberals” (which is a highly suspect claim), Juan Williams and Mara Liasson are on the air for a few minutes out of a 24-hour news cycle. Compare that to the total domination of Hannity, O’Reilly, Ingraham, Palin, Beck, North, Huckabee and Rove — to name but a few — and you have a portrait of a “news” channel that is virtually staffed by GOP operatives. Almost every minute of every day of their schedule is filled with relentless opinion, bias, and outright propagandizing. Any attempt to find an equivalence with MSNBC and CNN is a total joke. With Fox the politicizing permeates every show, every story, every host, every supposed “expert,” every graphic, every online poll and every news crawl.
If you want to convince anyone outside of the Faux News bubble that they have one shred of objectivity, you’re gonna have to get better talking points from Roger Ailes.
advocatusdiaboli // May 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm
“I don’t really think they thought Sadaam was behind 9/11.”
Now who is re-writing history out of embarrassment. “President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection.” –Boston Globe 16 June 2004
“Cheney’s comments Monday echoed a January interview with National Public Radio in which he said, ”There’s overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there.” –Boston Globe 16 June 2004
Bebe99 // May 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Fox News does not contain a lot of actual news.There are news headlines but news is sprinkled into a line up of 24/7 commentary such that the “news” is not distinguishable from the opinion. This channel which began as the propaganda arm of the Republican party, is now in complete control of that party. Oh and franco–if you think any corporate owned media can be seriously left-wing then you don’t much about politics or how corporations operate, and you probably don’t understand what left-wing is either.
easton // May 10, 2010 at 6:51 pm
outside of Shephard Smith, I find Fox simply unwatcheable. OK, Rivera and Huckabee (he is Conservative but not confrontational) are ok, but are only on weekends. As to what I do watch, I get CNN International so I can’t really say I find it all that biased, unless you count living golf, or world business report inherently biased. Fox news however is absolutely wretched. Its international ratings are terrible, and Europeans simply laugh at it. In that sense it is anti-American because it so blantantly subverts the notion of the basic tenets of journalism, which is an attempt to be unbiased. Not long ago Fox asserted that the non proliferation treaty was based on Islam, when it was simply a replica of the Niels Bohn Hydrogen atom. John Stewart utterly destroyed Fox and its vacousness by finding out this simple fact instead of what Fox did, which was completely irresponsible by making up simple facts. They are a disgrace.
mickster99 // May 10, 2010 at 10:54 pm
right wing = getting high on hysteria and paranoia. Pathetic, really.
nhthinker // May 11, 2010 at 7:52 am
easton and slide take the typical left wingnut positions
*) Iraq has a democratically elected government that is the front lines of protecting its people and is doing the hard job against a insurgency. Killing rate in Iraq is less than that in Mexico and less than the killing rate in some American cities. American causalities in Iraq are now less than those of American Census workers.
*) Still not word one about the winnability of Afghanistan as compared to Iraq. Liberals stay true to their stereotype
*) Definition of “natural born” as it applies to the presidency is not settled law as described be main stream “about.com” reference. Liberals continue to pretend it is settled without a single legal reference. I wonder if Obama had been the son of a Austrian white supremacist and Obama wrote a “Dreams of my Father” that Liberals would be so lax in what “natural born” means to the Constitution- The intent was to reduce or eliminate the threat that parents that are not American citizens are shaping the political views of potential presidents. Pretending that that was not the intent of the “natural born” reference in Article 2 of the Constitution is the liberals reinterpreting the document from the current perspective of the mob.
franco 2 // May 11, 2010 at 9:46 am
From Bebe99
“Oh and franco–if you think any corporate owned media can be seriously left-wing then you don’t much about politics or how corporations operate, and you probably don’t understand what left-wing is either.”
This statement displays complete ignorance of, well, corporations and by extension, politics. Corporations are not inherently right-wing, not at all. The fact that left wingers hate corporations does not make them “right wing”. In fact what left wingers most dislike about corporations is that they are set up primarily and exclusively to make money while no individual is held accountable for the corporation’s excesses. I actually have quite a bit of disdain for them too on this SAME basis. I actually, as a free market capitalist, have serious reservations about corporations and their effect on society.
Corporations are whores. They will do anything for money…that’s how they are set up. Corporations have no ideology they are entities that will simply go where the money is. Corporations have no long term strategy to be able to posses a coherent ideology, they are bound to the next quarter. They tend to go with what works until it dies. Then they will usually sell off something that’s giving them trouble, as GE did with NBC.
Corporations usually own a panoply of businesses, CNN is owned by TimeWarner. ABC is owned by Disney, and to further educate some of you folks, you should know that news divisions are not especially important (because they aren’t that profitable) to these companies. In fact, it is very much in these corporations interests in general that the people be kept in thrall of the media empire in general and they spend a lot of time and effort promoting their movies, the movie stars that are in their movies, and in effect keeping the chatter going back and forth between platforms. That is why we see so much fluff in news content. They are often promoting their own movies or sports ventures, etc. Often they play a game with their rivals by promoting each other’s films and stars by negotiation, “you have star x promoting our new movie on Letterman and we’ll have star y promoting your new release on Leno”
The owners don’t really care. In fact the owners are stockholders and therefore they have little ability to change the direction of, say, ABC news, and here’s why. First you can’t just hold stock in ABC news. You have to own Disney stock. Disney owns:
Film
Walt Disney Pictures
Touchstone Pictures
Hollywood Pictures
Miramax Films
Pixar
Broadcast Television
ABC Network
Owned and Operated Television Stations
WLS – Chicago
WJRT – Flint
KFSN – Fresno
KTRK – Houston
KABC – Los Angeles
WABC – New York City
WPVI – Philadelphia
WTVD – Raleigh – Durham
KGO – San Francisco
WTVG – Toledo
Cable Television
ESPN (80%)
ESPN2 (80%)
ESPN Classic (80%)
ESPNU (80%)
ESPNEWS (80%)
ABC Family
Disney Channel
Toon Disney
SOAPnet
Lifetime Network (partial)
Lifetime Movie Network (partial)
Lifetime Real Women (partial)
A&E (partial)
A&E International (partial)
Jetix Europe (partial)
Jetix Latin America
The History Channel (partial)
Lifetime Real Women (partial)
Radio
ABC Radio
WDWD – Atlanta
WMVP – Chicago
WLS – Chicago
KESN – Dallas
KMKI – Dallas-Forth Worth
KRDY – San Antonio
WCOG – Greensboro, NC
WRDZ – Indianapolis
KABC – Los Angeles
KLOS – Los Angeles
KDIS – Los Angeles
KSPN – Los Angeles
KDIZ – Minneapolis – St. Paul
WKSH – Milwaukee, WI
WEVD – New York City
KDZR – Portland, OR
KWDZ – Salt Lake City
KIID – Sacramento
KMKY – Oakland
KQAM – Wichita
KKDZ – Seattle
WSDZ – St. Louis
WWMK – Cleveland
KMIK – Phoenix
KDDZ – Denver
WWMI – Tampa
KMIC – Houston
WMYM – Miami
WBWL – Jacksonville
WBYU – New Orleans
KDIS – Little Rock
WWJZ – Philadelphia
WWJZ – Philadelphia
WMKI – Boston
WDZK – Hartford
WDDZ – Providence
WDZY – Richmond
WGFY – Charlotte
WDYZ – Orlando
WMNE – West Palm Beach
WEAE – Pittsburgh
WDRD – Louisville
WDDY – Albany, NY
KPHN – Kansas City
WQUA – Mobile
WBML – Jacksonville
WFDF – Detroit
WFRO – Fremont, OH
WDMV – Damascus, MD
WHKT – Norfolk Radio Disney
ESPN Radio (syndicated programming)
Music
Walt Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Lyric Street Records
Publishing
Book Publishing Imprints
Hyperion
Miramax Books
ESPN Books
Theia
ABC Daytime Press
Hyperion eBooks
Hyperion East
Disney Publishing Worldwide
Cal Publishing Inc.
CrossGen
Hyperion Books for Children
Jump at the Sun
Volo
Michael di Caupa Books
Disney Global Children’s Books
Disney Press
Disney Editions
Disney Libri
Global Retail
Global Continuity
Magazine
Automotive Industries
Biography (with GE and Hearst)
Discover
Disney Adventures
Disney Magazine
ECN News
ESPN Magazine (distributed by Hearst)
Family Fun
Institutional Investor
JCK
Kodin
Top Famille – French family magazine
US Weekly (50%)
Video Business
Quality
Wondertime Magazine
Parks and Resorts
Walt Disney Imagineering
Disneyland Resort
Walt Disney World Resort
Tokyo Disney Resort
Disneyland Resort Paris
Hong Kong Disneyland
Disney Vacation Club
Disney Cruise Line
Other
Disney Theatrical Productions
Disney Live Family Entertainment
Disney on Ice
The Disney Store
Club Penguins
ESPN Zone
Disney Toys
Disney Apparel, Accessories and Footwear
Disney Food, Health and Beauty
Disney Home Furnishings and Decor
Disney Stationery
Disney Consumer Economics
The Baby Einstein Company
Muppets Holding Company
Disney Interactive Studios
Walt Disney Internet Group
ABC news is trivial in this context. And even though Walt may have been conservative (my god everyone was more conservative in those days) everyone knows this is not Walt’s company anymore after Jeffrey Katzenberg and Micheal Eisner (both big-time Democrats) as CEO’s. One could say that ownership takes a back seat to management with these companies. And by far the most influential folks in the news operation’s day to day content selection and angle of story presentation are producers and the big name anchors themselves.
So even if you could get a bunch of stockholders to agree to have some kind of fight to get ABC news to be more fair to conservatives and tougher on the Democrats, you would have to fight all the other Disney stockholders, many of whom, perhaps even a majority of whom are Democrats themselves.
Lets take a look at Time Warner:
Time Warner – Cable
HBO
Cinemax
HBO Video
HBO Independent Productions
HBO OnDemand International
HBO Mobile International
Adult Swim
Boomerang
CNN
CNN International
CNN en Espanol
CNN Headline News
CNN Headline News in Latin America
CNN Headline News in Asia Pacific
CNN Mobile
CNN+
CETV
CNN Newsource
CNN Pipeline
CNN To Go
CNN fn
CNN Radio
CNN Interactive
Court TV (with Liberty Media)
Time Warner Cable
Road Runner
New York 1 News (24 hour news channel devoted only to NYC)
Kablevision (53.75% – cable television in Hungary)
In Demand
Metro Sports (Kansas City)
Time Warner Inc. – Film & TV Production/Distribution
Warner Bros.
Warner Bros. Studios
Warner Bros. Television (production)
The WB Television Network
Warner Bros. Television Animation
Hanna – Barbera Cartoons
Telepictures Production
The CW Television Network
Kids’ WB!
Castle Rock Entertainment
Warner Home Video
Warner Bros. Domestic Pay – TV
Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution
Warner Bros. International Television Distribution
The Warner Channel (Latin America, Asia – Pacific, Australia, Germ.)
Warner Bros. International Theaters (owns/operates multiplex theaters in over 12 countries)
Warner Bros. Online
Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment
Warner Bros. Technical Operations
Warner Bros. Consumer Products
Warner Bros. Studio Facilities
Time Warner Inc. – Magazines
Time
Time Asia
Time Atlantic
Time Canada
Time Latin America
Time South Pacific
Time Money
Time For Kids
Fortune
Fortune Asia
Fortune Europe
FSB: Fortune Small Business
All You
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated International
SI for Kids
Money
People
Who Weekly (Australian edition)
People en Espa�ol
Teen People
Entertainment Weekly
In Style
Southern Living AT HOME
Southern Accents
Cooking Light
Cottage Living
This Old House
Sunset
Health
Hippocrates
Coastal Living
Real Simple
Wallpaper (U.K.)
Bride To Be
English Woman’s Weekly
Practical Parenting
Who
In Style Australia
25 Beautiful Homes
4×4
Aeroplane Monthly
Amateur Gardening
Amateur Photographer
Angler’s Mail
Beautiful Kitchens
Cage and Aviary Birds
Caravan Magazine
Chat
Chat – It’s Fate
Classic Boat
Country Homes and Interiors
Country Life
Cycle Sport
Cycling Weekly
Decanter
European Boat Builder
Eventing
Family Circle
Guitar
Hair
Hi Fi News
Homes and Gardens
Horse
Horse and Hound
Ideal Style
In Style (U.K.)
International Boat Industry
Land Rover World
Livingetc
Loaded
Mountain Bike Rider
MiniWorld
Model Collector
Motor Boat and Yachting
Motor Boats Monthly
Motor Caravan Magazine
NME
Now
Nuts
Park Home & Holiday Caravan
Pick Me Up
Practical Boat Owner
Prediction
Racecar Engineering
Rugby World
Ships Monthly
Shoot Monthly
Soaplife
Sporting Gun
Stamp Magazine
SuperBike Magazine
The Field
The Railway Magazine
The Shooting Gazette
TV & Satellite Week
TV Easy
TVTimes
Uncut
VolksWorld
Web User
Wedding
What Digital Camera
What’s on TV
Woman
Woman & Home
Woman’s Own
Woman’s Weekly
Yachting World
Your Yacht
Ambientes
Audi Magazine
Balance
Chilango
EXP
Expansion
IDC
Life and Style
Manufactura
Obras
Quien
Vuelo
Yachts
In Style Mexico
Magazines listed under Warner Brothers label
DC Comics
Vertigo
Wildstorm
Mad Magazine
Online Services
CompuServe Interactive Services
AOL Instant Messenger
ADTECH
Advertising.com
AOL.com portal
Digital City
AOL Europe
GameDaily.com
Lightningcast
ICQ
The Knot, Inc. – wedding content (8 % with QVC 36% and Hummer
WinbladFunds18%)
MapQuest.com
Spinner.com
Relegence
TACODA
Third Screen Media
Truveo
Userplane
Weblogs, Inc.
Winamp
Xdrive
CNNStudentNews.com
NASCAR.com
PGA.com
Time Warner – Online/Other Publishing
Road Runner
Warner Publisher Services
Time Distribution Services
American Family Publishers (50%)
Africana.com
Time Warner – Merchandise/Retail
Warner Bros. Consumer Products
Theme Parks
Warner Brothers Recreation Enterprises (owns/operates international theme parks)
Time Warner Inc. – Turner Entertainment
Entertainment Networks
TBS Superstation
Turner Network Television (TNT)
Turner South
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies
Cartoon Network in Europe
Cartoon Network in Latin America
TNT & Cartoon Network in Asia/Pacific
TNT Latin America
TNT HD
TCM Asia Pacific
TCM Canada
TCM Europe
TCM Classic Hollywood in Latin America
Adult Swim
Boomerang
CETV
GameTap
TBS
Pogo
Toonami
TrueTV
Peachtree TV
Film Production
New Line Cinema
Fine Line Features
Picturehouse
Turner Original Productions
Sports
Atlanta Braves
Other Operations
Turner Learning
CNN Newsroom (daily news program for classrooms)
Turner Adventure Learning (electronic field trips for schools)
Turner Home Satellite
Turner Network Sales
Other
Netscape Communications
Netscape Netcenter portal
AOL MovieFone
iAmaze
Amazon.com (partial)
Quack.com
Streetmail (partial)
Switchboard (6%)
Advantages
European Magazines Limited
billyshake // May 11, 2010 at 11:01 am
franco: “I am very suspicious of privileged people who want to “help” poor and downtrodden people. Usually they just want to assuage their guilt feelings, and they want to do it with other people’s money.
As an American and an NGO worker, it’s amazing how often I hear that exact sentiment. Yes, Franco, I choose to live in Third World countries and do what I do because I’m just sooo in need of assuaging my horrible guilt. And other people’s money? Like the giant money trees I can pick from at any time I need in order to save a kid’s infected limb? Oh, wait — I DON’T have a cash tree. Yet it is always the francos of the world who sit next to me in a pub and go on about how I’m just doing this job to assuage guilt and that, in fact, I’m making things somehow worse (“creating a welfare state!”).
In my opinion, the guilt lies on that side of the fence where folks get fat grazing, worrying only about their own hides, and stopping now and again to chew cuds about how “helping the downtrodden” is a bad thing. Worse, so dang many of these folks are the ones who call themselves Christians. C’est la vie.
CentristNYer // May 11, 2010 at 11:48 am
franco:
You really don’t get it, do you? You can rattle off a list of a thousand media properties, but not one of them is the 24-hour fact-free propaganda machine that Faux News is.
Face it, you don’t have a leg to stand on here.
Osborne Ink || News that's fairly liberal, but never unbalanced. » Blog Archive » How Democrats Can Win November // May 17, 2010 at 1:02 pm
[...] David Frum has recognized the corrosive effect of doubling-down on eliminationist rhetoric: Even in the absence of some nutcase violence that [...]